View full sizePhoto Courtesy of Samuel Snyder John Bayliss says this photo shows injuries state troopers inflicted on his son, James, on May 16, 2009. The younger Bayliss was in a car stopped at a blockade as troopers tried to find a pair of burglary suspects in Warren County.

TRENTON — When the State Police and Attorney General’s Office announced in June that a trooper had used unreasonable force when he beat a mentally disabled man after a traffic stop, they left out one dramatic detail.

More than a year earlier, the agencies had initially found the same trooper did nothing wrong, according to court records, even though a patrol car video captured him throwing the man to the ground and punching him several times in the face.

"I have reviewed the (video) and do not see anything shocking or unreasonable," Deputy Attorney General Michael Engallena wrote in a February 2010 letter to Staff Sgt. Richard Wambold Jr., referring to the 2009 incident in Warren County.

State Police Lt. Leonard Hoffman reached the same finding in November 2010, court records show, when he concluded in an internal report that "unreasonable use of force was not used and this allegation is unfounded against Sgt. Wambold."

Attorneys in the case say the latest disclosures raise more troubling questions about the state’s handling of its internal investigation, which dragged on for three years until The Star-Ledger obtained the video and inquired about the incident.

"The bottom line is what was done: nothing," said Robert Woodruff, an attorney for the man beaten, James Bayliss, 24, of Hackettstown. "The State Police ratified this entire process; they’ve ratified the conduct — this was a whitewash."

An attorney for Wambold, Charles Sciarra, contends the documents show that despite repeatedly finding his client innocent, state authorities buckled to negative headlines and changed course at the last minute.

RELATED COVERAGE:

"The deputy attorneys general assigned to the case as well as investigators in the State Police found that Wambold did not commit any violations," Sciarra said. "The only time that changed was when The Star-Ledger made an inquiry."

The state’s initial findings were included in a revised complaint filed by Woodruff on Nov. 7 alleging Wambold and another trooper, Keith Juckett, used excessive force. The case is pending in U.S. District Court in Trenton.

The State Police and Attorney General’s Office declined comment, citing the need for confidentiality in a lawsuit. The agencies have not explained why their initial conclusions in defense of Wambold differed so significantly from their final findings announced in June. In general, the agencies do not discuss or release the details of internal State Police investigations.

In their announcement in June, the State Police admitted for the first time the troopers had used unreasonable force. They said the investigation was a "thorough, in-depth" review by authorities who "engaged in an exhaustive and systematic process."

The State Police also said they initiated the investigation internally and substantiated the allegations in March, three months before receiving questions from The Star-Ledger. But court records show Wambold and Juckett were not served with disciplinary charges until June 1, the same day the newspaper made inquiries. Those charges are pending.

The Attorney General’s Office said, also in June and just before the newspaper article appeared, that the actions of Wambold and Juckett "clearly involved a breach" of its use of force policy and that excessive force "will not be tolerated and will be met with strong and appropriate disciplinary action."

Attorney General Jeffrey Chiesa later conceded the investigation took too long and said changes had already been made to speed up reviews. The initial findings in defense of Wambold were reached under former Attorney General Paula Dow.

‘OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS’

"Nothing changed," Woodruff said. "The video is the video. The statements were taken years ago. Nobody came forward with a new video. There is nothing new. Nothing is there. How could they come to two opposite conclusions?"

In the video, recorded by a dashboard camera in one of the patrol cars on the scene, Wambold can be seen frisking Bayliss, then 21, after he and a friend, Timothy Snyder, were pulled over by police looking for a burglary suspect.

A few seconds later, Wambold threw Bayliss to the ground and punched him several times in the face.

After Bayliss was handcuffed, Wambold and Juckett dragged him head-first into the front of a parked patrol car, according to the video and an eyewitness living in a home about 30 feet from where the incident took place.

In defense of the trooper, Sciarra claims Bayliss was belligerent and drunk, and that he resisted arrest by attempting to head-butt the trooper while being frisked. He has said Wambold is a decorated public servant.

Woodruff said the video and eyewitness account prove his client did nothing to provoke the attack. He said the Bayliss family has waited 3½ years for an answer about what happened that night but has been stonewalled.

Internal reports by state authorities now show that representatives of three agencies initially found Wambold did nothing wrong. But the details of those accounts differ from one another, as well as from the video. And no state or county investigator talked to the eyewitness, who said in a sworn court deposition she saw the entire incident and that the attack was unprovoked.

In September 2010, the Warren County Prosecutor’s Office found "there is not conclusive evidence suggesting that Sgt. Wambold utilized excessive force" and declined to pursue criminal charges against the trooper.

A month later, the State Police lieutenant on the case, Hoffman, said in his report he concurred with Warren County’s findings, according to court documents. He said Bayliss disregarded commands, was drunk, and his recollection of what happened that night was inconsistent with that of the driver of the car, Snyder, as well as the video.

Hoffman also said Wambold was unaware of Bayliss’ disability, the result of a severe traumatic brain injury suffered in a 2005 car accident that nearly killed him, records show. But before the beating, Snyder can be heard on the video telling a trooper on the scene about Bayliss’ condition and that if he saw him sober, "you would think that he was messed up."

Four other troopers, including Wambold, were within a few feet of the conversation, the video shows.

"It is also probable Sgt. Wambold expected that he needed more force when handling Bayliss and it was Bayliss’ intoxication and disability that made his unsteadiness a factor as too (sic) why the amount of force used by Sgt. Wambold may have at first seemed unjustified," Hoffman wrote in his report, according to court documents.

Hoffman also said Wambold and Juckett did not walk Bayliss into the front of a patrol car, but that Wambold’s leg hit the car. The finding contradicts the video and what was described by the eyewitness. According to court documents, Hoffman sent his report to State Police headquarters for approval around March 2011, but it was returned a month later for further review.

Court documents do not say, nor has the state explained, why the initial investigation was reversed.

The state attorney initially assigned to the case, Engallena, said in his February 2011 letter to Wambold that it "appears (Bayliss’) head may have accidentally struck the cruiser while troopers carried him to the vehicle, but not intentionally as he now claims," according to court records.

Engallena also said Bayliss was "taken down smoothly" and "hit once or twice," the records state. But the video of the incident shows Wambold threw Bayliss to the ground and punched him at least three times in the face. Court documents did not state how much information about the case Engallena had reviewed or had access to at the time of the letter.

"I will be happy to speak with you, and look forward to vigorously defending you in this action," Engallena wrote. The state also denied any wrongdoing on behalf of the troopers in its initial response to Bayliss’ federal lawsuit. In any case, the Attorney General’s Office does retain the right to change its position.

Engallena was replaced on the case by Deputy Attorney General Vincent Rizzo on Oct. 31, 2011, court records show.

DEFENSE DROPPED

In August of this year, the Attorney General’s Office said it would abandon its defense of Wambold and not pay for his legal costs or damages from the alleged misconduct. It said it could not defend the trooper while prosecuting him internally.

Without the state to pay damages for Wambold’s conduct, Bayliss stands to collect far less money if successful in the lawsuit. The move also leaves Wambold on the hook to pay for his lawyer and any damages stemming from his actions.

Sciarra said he will fight to force the state to pay for Wambold’s defense and damages.